Faculty Bibliography

Ureaplasma is a significant cause of nongonococcal urethritis. This is a case of rectal Ureaplasma found on culture in a young man who has sex with men not previously reported in the literature. Nucleic acid amplification tests are now standard of care for sexually transmitted infection testing, but they do not test for Ureaplasma and, therefore, may be missing important infections. Ureaplasma could have important implications in urethritis and rectal HIV transmission among men who have sex with men engaging in condomless anal intercourse. Further study of Ureaplasma's role as a rectal pathogen may be warranted.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol and drug use is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality that frequently goes unidentified in medical settings. As part of a multi-phase study to implement the NIDA Common Data Elements for collecting substance use screening information in electronic health records (EHRs), we interviewed key clinical stakeholders with a goal of identifying barriers and facilitators affecting the implementation of substance use screening in primary care clinics. METHODS: Focus groups and individual qualitative interviews were conducted with 67 stakeholders, including primary care patients, medical providers (faculty and resident physicians, nurses), and medical assistants, in two urban academic health systems. Themes were identified, discussed, and revised through an iterative process, and mapped to the Knowledge to Action (KTA) framework (Graham, 2006), which guides the selection and implementation of new clinical practices. RESULTS: Factors affecting implementation based on KTA elements were identified from participant narratives. Identifying the problem: Participants unanimously agreed that having knowledge of a patient's substance use is important because of its impacts on health andmedical care, that substance use is not properly identified in medical settings, and that universal screening is the best approach. Adapting knowledge: The majority of patients and providers stated that the primary care provider should play a key role in substance use screening and interventions. There was discrepancy of opinion regarding the optimal approach to delivering screening. Some felt that patients should self-administer questionnaires, while others thought that patients would be more comfortable having face-to-face discussions with their primary care provider - though not with other members of the care team. Many providers reported that being able to take effective action once unhealthy substance use is identified is crucial. Assessing barriers: Patients expressed concerns about confidentiality, 'denial', and providers' lack of empathy. Barriers identified by providers included individual-level factors such as lack of knowledge and training, and systems-level factors including lack of time, resources, and space, disjointed communication between members of the medical team, and difficulty accessing addiction treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these findings, we designed and are testing an implementation strategy utilizing universal screening, patient self-administered questionnaires, and EHR-integrated clinical decision support to assist providers in conducting brief motivational counseling and linking patients to behavioral health services, to address unhealthy substance use in primary care clinics

BACKGROUND: There is a need for a rapid substance use screening instrument to detect unhealthy tobacco, alcohol, and other drug use among primary care patients. The Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription Medications, and other Substances Tool (TAPS Tool) is a combined 2-part screening and brief assessment developed for adult primary care patients. Its screening component (TAPS-1) consists of 4 items asking about past 12-month use of four substance categories (any tobacco, 5 or more drinks/day for men [4 for women] of alcohol, any illicit drug use, and any non-medical use of prescription drugs. Categorical response options are: never, less than monthly, monthly, weekly, and daily or almost daily. The objective of this preplanned secondary analysis was to validate the TAPS-1 against the DSM-5 substance use disorder (SUD) criteria. METHODS: This was a multi-site study evaluating the concurrent validity of the TAPS-1 compared to SUD criteria conducted among 2,000 adult primary care patients in 5 clinics located in 4 Eastern US states. Participants completed the TAPS Tool in a self- administered version on a tablet computer and in an interviewer-administered format, in random order. They were then administered a modified version of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) to determine DSM-5 criteria. Optimal cut points for identifying SUDs were obtained using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis to obtain sensitivity (sens), specificity (spec), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: The optimal cut-point on the interviewer-administered TAPS-1 for identifying SUDs was '> monthly use' for tobacco (sens = .95, spec = .80, PPV= .62, NPV = .98, AUC = .88) and for alcohol (sens = .68, spec = .87, PPV = .45, NPV = .94, AUC = .77). In contrast, 'any use' was the optimal cut-point for illicit drugs (sens = .93, spec = .86, PPV = .50, NPV = .99, AUC = .89) and for nonmedical use of prescription drugs (sens = .90, spec = .95, PPV = .41, NPV = 1.0, AUC= .93). The self-administered format had similar performance. CONCLUSIONS: The TAPS-1 was able to rapidly screen adult primary care patients for SUDs. Thus, the TAPS-1 could assist health care providers in determining which patients might need a focused, in-depth substance use assessment

OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study is to compare the attenuation and homogeneity of renal neoplasms with those of cysts on contrast-enhanced CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:A total of 129 renal neoplasms and 24 simple cysts were evaluated. Two readers determined whether each mass was qualitatively heterogeneous or homogeneous. Mean, minimum, and maximum attenuation values were measured. Statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS:A total of 116 heterogeneous renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) (99 clear cell, four papillary, four oncocytic, seven chromophobe, and two unclassified RCCs), 13 homogeneous RCCs (10 papillary, two oncocytic, and one chromophobe RCC), and 24 cysts (all of which were homogeneous) were evaluated. All homogeneous RCCs had mean attenuation values of more than 42 HU, whereas renal cysts had mean attenuation values of up to 30 HU (p < 0.001). Two readers qualitatively and identically categorized all RCCs as homogeneous or heterogeneous (κ = 1.0; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Homogeneous simple renal cysts can have mean attenuation values of up to 30 HU, as determined by contrast-enhanced CT, whereas homogeneous RCCs have mean attenuation values as low as 42 HU, with no overlap occurring between the two groups. These data suggest that further evaluation of a homogeneous renal mass with a mean attenuation value of 30 HU or less on a contrast-enhanced CT scan likely is unwarranted.

INTRODUCTION: Until recently, there has not been a valid and reliable screening test for lung cancer. As compared to chest X-ray, low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening has demonstrated greater sensitivity resulting in lung cancer diagnosis at an earlier stage, thereby reducing lung cancer mortality among high-risk individuals by 20%. In the current study, we sought to examine knowledge and attitudes about LDCT screening for lung cancer among an ethnically and racially diverse sample of high risk (HR) community members and primary care providers (PCP). METHODS: Eligible individuals participated in a focus group using semi-structured interview guides. Focus groups were conducted with PCPs (by telephone) and HRs (in-person). Sessions were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. The constant comparison method and content analysis were used to analyze results. RESULTS: The majority of PCPs had limited knowledge of lung cancer CT screening. PCPs cited barriers to recommendation including, cost/insurance barriers and the potential for false positives. PCPs perceived the main benefit to be early detection of lung cancer. The majority of HRs had never heard of lung LDCT screening and had never had a healthcare provider recommend it to them. Perceived barriers included fear of results (bad news) and financial costs. The main perceived benefit was early detection. CONCLUSION: Lack of knowledge about LDCT was a key a barrier across both the PCP and HR. RESPONDENTS: Understanding the barriers to lung screening across diverse community populations is necessary to improve screening rates and shared decision-making.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM OR QUESTION (ONE SENTENCE): T2D patients needing insulin adjustments require multiple clinic visits for titration, but face barriers (missed work, transportation costs, clinic co-pays) all of which disproportionately affect vulnerable populations. OBJECTIVES OF PROGRAM/INTERVENTION (NO MORE THAN THREE OBJECTIVES): MITI aims to be clinically efficacious, patientcentered, and highly accessible (only requires text messaging and phone calls). DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM/INTERVENTION, INCLUDING ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT (E.G. INPATIENT VS. OUTPATIENT, PRACTICE OR COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS): MITI is an efficacious, patient-centered, accessible program that remotely guides T2D patients to their correct basal insulin dose (glargine, detemir). Eligible patients have T2D, an A1c >8%, a phone that can text, and need titration of basal insulin. Patients referred by their providers are enrolled on a secure website which sends a weekday text message asking 'What was your fasting blood sugar this morning?' Each day the MITI nurse checks the website for alarm values (extreme high or low values). Once a week, the MITI nurse calls patients and, using the MITI titration algorithm, advises them on dose adjustments. The goal of the program is to find the optimal basal insulin dose (OID), which is the dose that achieves a fasting blood sugar between 80 and 130 (or the maximal dose of 50 units). MITI lasts a maximum of 12 weeks. When the program ends, patients return to usual care. MEASURES OF SUCCESS (DISCUSS QUALITATIVE AND/OR QUANTITATIVE METRICS WHICH WILL BE USED TO EVALUATE PROGRAM/INTERVENTION): Using a single-group, quasiexperimental approach, we examined the proportion of patients reaching OID within 12 weeks, the mean number of days required to reach OID, and reductions in fasting glucose and A1c. We described participant response rates, staff time required to deliver the intervention, and patient time saved. Qualitative interviews were also conducted. FINDINGS TO DATE (IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TOSTATE FINDINGS WILL BE DISCUSSED): Of the 71 participants who completed the program, 86% reached OID, 5.6% did not reach OID, and 8.5% terminated the program early. Those reaching OID did so in a mean of 21 (SD 21) days. Fasting glucose levels decreased from 209 (SD 77) mg/dl to 140 (SD 45), and mean A1c (for those with follow up labs thus far) decreased from 11.6% (SD 1.9) to 10.0% (SD 2.2). Ninety-one percent of text prompts received a response from the participant. Mean staff time required to deliver MITI was 16 min (SD 5) per participant per week, and patients reported a mean time saving of 150 (SD 74) min each time an in-person visit was averted. Qualitative interviews suggest that clinical staff perceived MITI to be a preferred alternative to clinic-based insulin titration, one that resulted in good care without interfering with clinic flow. Patients reported that the enrollment process was easy and that MITI motivated them to eat healthier food, take their insulin, and check their blood sugars. Because of MITI they reported feeling more connected to their medical team. KEYLESSONS FORDISSEMINATION(WHAT CANOTHERS TAKE AWAY FOR IMPLEMENTATION TO THEIR PRACTICE OR COMMUNITY?): MITI is a clinically efficacious, patient-centered and accessible program for the titration of basal insulin for T2D patients. By eliminating the need for in-person access, MITI proves especially helpful for vulnerable populations. Patients and staff found MITI to be convenient, time-saving, and motivating for patients

BACKGROUND: In the Spring and Summer of 2016, a text-messaging intervention to titrate basal insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes and poor glycemic control was implemented at two safety net health care systems in New York City. The goal of the current study was to conduct a qualitative evaluation assessing barriers to, and facilitators of, implementation of the mobile insulin titration intervention (called "MITI"). METHODS: We conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with patients (N = 36) and physician, nursing and administrative staff (N = 19) at the two health care systems implementing MITI. Interviews were transcribed and coded by two study investigators using a codebook guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and through iterative, consensus driven content analysis. RESULTS: Patients and staff perceived MITI as convenient and timesaving for patients, easy to use, and effective at achieving its clinical goals. Patients were comfortable sharing health information via text, and felt good about communicating with their health team remotely. Interviewees across stakeholder groups felt that MITI was helpful beyond insulin titration by reminding and motivating patients to engage in healthy behaviors and improving medication adherence. Staff felt MITI worked well with existing workflows and expressed a desire to see MITI expanded to other chronic conditions. Nurses responsible for weekly titration reported initial concerns over safety/liability, time required to deliver the program, difficulties reaching patients for titration calls and the need for ongoing support/training in using the online texting platform. Perceived barriers to MITI implementation reported by providers included perceived lack of patient cell phone access or texting capabilities and patient language barriers. There was also a theme that emerged across interviewees of an unmet need for additional diabetes management support among this population, beyond insulin support provided by MITI. The project team made several modifications to MITI operations in response to these findings. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff were overwhelmingly supportive of MITI and believed it had many benefits. Initial implementation of MITI should address nurse comfort, workload and training, and sites should provide ongoing support and training for nurses after implementation. Future research should explore options for integrating additional diabetes support for patients enrolled in MITI or after they are discharged from the program